Help support TMP


"US Army might have found its new rifle in Colorado ......" Topic


13 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Ultramodern Warfare (2008-present) Message Board



656 hits since 30 Sep 2018
©1994-2018 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Tango01 Supporting Member of TMP01 Oct 2018 12:04 p.m. PST

….Springs garaje

"The Army adopted its battle rifle in 1963 and has spent 55 years looking for a replacement for the M-16 and its variants.

They might have found it in Martin Grier's Colorado Springs garage. Grier, a self-described inventor who has worked at a local bed and breakfast, built the new "ribbon gun" with a hobbyist's tools. It looks like a space-age toy drawn by a fifth-grader.

But goofy origins and cartoon-looks aside, this could be the gun of the future. The Army is studying Grier's gun and has ordered a military-grade prototype…."


link


Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

goragrad01 Oct 2018 2:16 p.m. PST

That ammo block looks rather bulkier than the four cartridges it is replacing. Not sure how that will impact loadouts.

Thresher01 Supporting Member of TMP01 Oct 2018 3:45 p.m. PST

Hmmm, an interesting, and very ugly design.

Wonder how much it weighs with those ammo blocks?

That's usually the real killer of more sophisticated weapons.

EMP does seem like a possible concern too, as well as viability in high moisture environments, or heavy rain. Electronics don't like that.

AR-10 works for me. 7.62mm version of the AR-15/M4. Tested, and proven.

Lion in the Stars01 Oct 2018 3:59 p.m. PST

What the heck happened to the LSAT caseless LMG?

Personal logo StoneMtnMinis Supporting Member of TMP01 Oct 2018 4:08 p.m. PST

The military always looks at new weapon designs. Some of the "blockiness" may be due to being built with "hobbyist tools".

Bronco5301 Oct 2018 6:54 p.m. PST

LOL. No. No one in the military is seriously interested in that POS. It literally replaces the brass cases with even heavier steel "ammunition blocks" which are, fundamentally, exactly the same thing as expendable rifle chambers. It also requires multiple barrels (four or five), which makes the weight (and cost!) of not only the ammunition, but the rifle skyrocket, and adds the issue of having to regulate five different barrels to hit at, or near the same point of aim. Regulating multiple barrels is a difficult process. There is a reason that double-barreled African big game guns cost so much: a lot of it is in the difficulty getting the barrels lined up right. And that's just for TWO barrels!

Functionally, this thing is roughly equivalent to an 1860s era revolver: instead of putting new cartridges into the gun, you put in a new cylinder pre-loaded with power and shot. It's also kind of like the system used in the Agar "coffee mill gun" ( link ) in that, instead of having metallic cartridges, it just fed a hopper full of pre-loaded barrel chambers into the gun.

Now, do you know of any military in the world that has continued using cap-and-ball revolver style reloads, or anything like the Agar gun since then? You're literally making the most pressure-critical part of the gun (the chamber) into an expendable part. The part that has to be the strongest bit in the entire system is thrown away every shot. The part that has to be the strongest, and therefore is the heaviest. Sounds… dumb.

No, you have not seen anything of the like since the 1860s.

Because the idea ISN'T new, and it IS stupid.

Zephyr101 Oct 2018 7:36 p.m. PST

"It also requires multiple barrels (four or five), which makes the weight (and cost!) of not only the ammunition, but the rifle skyrocket, and adds the issue of having to regulate five different barrels(…)"

Not to mention cleaning them. Can't imagine that multiplied chore being popular with the troops…

Gunfreak Supporting Member of TMP02 Oct 2018 7:38 a.m. PST

Bring back the musket!

Tango01 Supporting Member of TMP02 Oct 2018 10:40 a.m. PST

(smile)

Amicalement
Armand

General Kirchner02 Oct 2018 8:54 p.m. PST

+1 Bronco53.

just because you can doesn't mean you should.

No military is taking the thing seriously. Calling it caseless does not make it so.

fun poking around weird concept gun, YES.

Military gun of the future? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Personal logo Patrick R Supporting Member of TMP03 Oct 2018 11:31 a.m. PST

Every few years the army tries a new concept, remember SPIW ? Flechettes and the ACR ? Three-Round burst ? XM-8 ?

Unless one comes up with a really new concept that offers a marked advantage over current weapons (and no, 6.x mm ammo doesn't make the cut) it's going to be AR-15/M16 in 5.56mm for quite a while yet. (Bonus if your concept fits inside an M4 or smaller/lighter package)

General Kirchner03 Oct 2018 3:08 p.m. PST

lots of good data on why a 6.5mm makes sense, but then again it should have made sense a long time ago, when the US forced NATO to adopt a modern version of the 30-06, and then said "oops" in vietnam a short time later and adopted the 5.56.

The issues or perceived issues the troops have with the range of the 5.56 in Iraq and Afghanistan could have been mitigated (not completely solved) also. Of course the brits looked at super long range rifles after the boer war right before they went into the trenches in WWI.

But i agree with patrick R, its not changing anytime soon from a 5.56 or m4 type weapon.

the marines going to a piston version didn't change the caliber, of course that decision wont get made by marines anyway.

Lion in the Stars03 Oct 2018 8:42 p.m. PST

Well, part of the problem with changing caliber is the logistics of it.

You'd have to build up a massive stockpile of the new ammo caliber long before you actually did the change, and that's on top of buying all the 5.56 and 7.62NATO ammo.

If you go to 6.x in an M4/M16 (or M27), you need new magazines, new barrels, new bolts. Oh, and new disintegrating links for the MGs. The good news would be that you could drop the M240s entirely and use nothing but M249 SAWs. Or you could up-caliber the M240s to something like .338 Norma and have your platoon MGs with the range of .50cals.

If you can get plastic case telescoped or caseless to work, you might as well step all the way up and not futz around with yet another brass-cased caliber. Get the basic infantry rifle back down to the 5lbs of the .30 Carbine.


For some horrible amusement, compare the ballistics of the 6.5 Grendel and the old 6.5 Arisaka. They're almost identical!

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.